October 4, 2006

Mickey Kaus notes the "Densepack Theory": "the anti-GOP media have launched so many damaging GOP stories... that they are all arriving at once and, like fratricidal incoming ICBMs, are knocking each other out of the news rather than destroying their target." This made me have to stop and think what was that thing we were all focusing on before Mark Foley paged us? Oh, yeah, it was the Woodward book. Kinda more substantive, no? Good thing a sex scandal came along to relieve us of the ordeal of agonizing over the war.

I arrived at Mickey's wisdom via Glenn Reynolds, who said: "A bigger risk is that with this many GOP scandal stories, the press will feel obliged to run with at least a couple of Dem scandals, too, to preserve the illusion of evenhandedness." And now that the Foley scandal has so graphically demonstrated power of nasty email and IMs, you've got to expect more of those things to surface. In fact, I assume this is the sort of thing the MSM have declined to publish in the past. Unfit to print and all that. Now, they have to print or face denouncement for imbalance. So, come on, everybody, forward to MSM all those evil cybermessages the various politicos have been sending you over the years. Let's see how MSM handles it, and let's sit back and enjoy the hijinks.

An incredulous Andrew Sullivan asks: "Who saves and records IM exchanges for posterity?" LOL. How many folks are just now getting their mind around computers? You mean the writing is actually somehow permanent? I wonder how many politicians (and others) are sweating out this little interlude in the history of sex.

I wouldn't generally save any IM exchange for posterity, but I probably would save a frank and personal IM exchange with a member of Congress, especially if I was young and more easily star-struck, and especially if the exchange was remotely weird or inappropriate.

Our home computer automatically recorded IM messages back in the day when we allowed the daughter to IM. Then we saw the content and banned the IMing. I think we had to set it up to record them, however. But it's always a mistake to assume that what you are sending away via a computer will never come back to haunt you. It wouldn't surprise me that older members of congress don't cotton to that idea.

While IM technology has the capacity to log the messages and save them to a file, it isn't set to do that by default, and one must go out of their way to set it to do it. Nor has the saving of the messages been in wide use as a customary and normal useage of instant messaging. IM is all about intantaneous interactive communications in real time, not about creating a permanent record. Hence, and perhaps obviously, the saving of these interactions was done for a purpose, the purpose being to get Foley. So some questions naturally flow from that, such as, who had access to these messages and for how long of a time period? The timing of release of this bombshell, not just a few weeks before the election, but also at a time when it was too late to get another candidate on the ballot to replace Foley, make the whole thing highly suspect. Not in any way excusing Foley, but the precise timing and nature of it screams that it was a systematiclly engineered takedown for maximum effect.

Zeb -- I find your argument uncompelling in the extreme. Are you suggesting that Democrats and/or the media knew something about Foley that the Republican Leadership didn't, and that they engineered this for maximum possible effect?

Zeb, The NYT quotes ABC correspondent Brian Ross as saying “I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party” (referring to Republicans).

I agree the timing does seem suspiciously bad for Republicans, but it seems just as plausible that an insider Republican who didn't agree with the decision to keep the Foley story under wraps released the info.

Also, sex advice columnist Dan Savage has a good piece on the sneaky-teens-were-trying-to-trap-Foley meme, recounting his own experience receiving sexually-explicit emails from teens, how he handles it, and how any public figure with half a brain (especially closeted gay ones) should be suspicious of the motivations behind sexually-charged communications they receive. His post is here: http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/10/mark_foley_me.php

The sight of Althouse, Reynolds and Kaus all huddling together for warmth is truly marvelous.

Such a deliciously counter-CW theory, this Densepack business. Right up Kaus's alley, really.

The theory that Foleygate is good news because it distracts from the Condi Rice/9-11 Commission scandal (and it is a scandal) is a little less preposterous on its face. But only a little.

Remember, National Security is supposed to be the Republicans' best issue. It wasn't like Iraq or the WoT were going especially well in mid-September, but just the discussion got people thinking in pro-authoritarian terms (hence the small bump in approval rating for Repubs).

The conventional wisdom in this case is exactly right. Foley is a devastating blow for the evangelical and social conservative base. They're calling for Hastert's head on the WSJ.com comments section, for crying out loud.

Plus, Foley's may not be the only seat that is lost as a direct result of this. Reynolds is in a world of hurt, having to try to sell the idea that he was unaware of his chief of staff's attempts to deal w/ ABC.

Look at the polls. The sheer multitude of damaging stories does not really offer that much protection.

An anonymous source within NAMBLA has forwarded IMs from Congressman Harold Ford to this reporter....

Jesus, Fen, could you take a half hour and do a little research? It will put an end to your gullible association of gay with NAMBLA. NAMBLA is a group that seeks to defend having sex with little children. Kids, Fen, i.e. tots. There is no support for NAMBLA as part of the gay rights movement. There's nothing about being gay that makes one want to rape children. Gay people are as revulsed and horrified by that as anyone else. NAMBLA tried to piggyback on the gay rights movement a couple of decades ago and was firmly rejected.

Go to the sources themselves and stop buying into slanderous right-wing propaganda. It's truly evil to keep repeating that lie.

Start with wikipedia's entry on "gay rights organizations." Ignore the entry, since there's always debate on wiki's accuracy. The entry includes a long list of links to the websites of the groups' themselves, international and U.S. Do a random survey and see for yourself what those groups have to say about NAMBLA and child sexual abuse.

I save anything funny, weird or useful. I have years of IMs and emails on my backup drive. It's mainly work stuff that sometimes is helpful to check--after Katrina, for instance, I had to reconstruct what I was doing the previous summer so I could pick it up again. I keep emails from students, the good stuff for my retention folder, and the bad stuff as evidence to support my grading. It never fails that the ones complaining the loudest about a bad grade do so in unpunctuated, misspelled, sentence fragments.

Okay, Fen, I'll buy that. I am primed to respond, though, after your throwing NAMBLA at me yesterday. Seriously, think about what I'm asking you to do. As much as it would satisfy my deepest, darkest irritation at the worst of the GOP, I don't toss out the Nazi analogy, even in fun. It may be obviously hyperbolic, but it's also just needlessly so. Besides, if anything, the Bush admin is more Stalinesque than Facist -- accuracy is important! Anyway, that's my beef, and you can do what you want with it.

Actually, here in Pennsylvania, we're pretty much too torn up over the slaughter of the Amish girls to be much interested in Foleygate, or to worry much about Woodward's book. And the Fred Phelps crew is coming to protest those poor Amish girls' funerals. Is anything sicker than that?

I haven't used IM in years. When I used it, I knew (or thought) that I had to take an extra effort if I wanted to save something from an IM. None of the people with whom I communicate via email have suggested that we use IM instead.

Sullivan has since posted from readers that IMs are routinely archived for those who use a common IM software tool. That was news to me.

However, when you think about "parties" rather than administrations, you do get some sort of resonation with the Democrats=Stalinists meme. Examples:1. I expect that there will be calls to airbrush Lieberman out of the videos from the 2000 campaign.2. The call for a purge of any democrat in the DLC or farther right.3. The appearance IMHO that the GOP has a wider range of positions on all issues than the democrats (e.g. war, gay rights, choice, national security, immigration, social security, etc) the GOP seems to accept divergent opinions far more than Dems.

and yes, I know that LA dem's are on the one hand more populist and more conservative than the Pelosi wing, but I'm talking about the faces of the national party.

Drill Sgt., it wouldn't be too hard to blank out the nouns in that list and replace them with matching examples from the GOP. But I was making a joke to lighten it up with Fen, so I'm not too invested in the effort. Item #1 I'd match with the Bush administration's practice of dismissing any critics as "disgruntled former employees." That list is long and distinguished.

#2? the DLC hasn't disbanded, and with Hillary being a front-runner for 2008, I'm not sure the so-called purge is all that important. She's a hawk already, and whoever runs will have to run right a bit. Fred Phelps is a rightwing Democrat--I'm happy with purging him! And I can think of some the GOP ought to work a bit harder to purge; a big tent ain't always a virtue.

More than anything, I'd have to disagree over #3. While there's an illusion of a variety of positions, the GOP is pretty lockstep over what gets into the platform, and how the votes come out when those issues come to the table. There's no variety on gay rights issues other than "there are no special rights"; very, very few GOP members vote pro-choice, probably about the same number as Dems who vote yes on restrictions to abortion rights. I'll give you diversity on national security, as the GOP has a number who stand up to expanding the executive's powers and oppose privacy invasions--are those really GOP or Libertarians? Immigration? I can't keep up with the shifting positions there; it's a blur.

This has been a good exercise; thanks for reminding me of why I registered Independent. I did that right after Clinton blew the Don't Ask, Don't Tell reform.

While IM technology has the capacity to log the messages and save them to a file, it isn't set to do that by default, and one must go out of their way to set it to do it.

Zeb, you are describing the interfaces of particular applications as if this were somehow a universal truth. I believe there are IM programs that save conversations automatically by default. Doesn't Gmail Talk do that? (I have no idea which application Foley was using.)

Anyway, who cares if "one must go out of their way to set it"? People often fiddle with preferences in applications without giving it much thought.

On gay rights, there are a chunk of the GOP that is more liberitarian than conservative and support gay rights in a fashion. For example, both the leading GOP Presidential candidates have a record friendly to gay issues. Hell Rudi lived with a gay couple, is on record of favoring gay rights. As for McCain, here is this recent statement:Monday, May 22, 2006

Washington — The Republican with the loudest presidential buzz says he won’t back a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, in spite of its importance to conservative GOP primary voters.

Arizona Sen. John McCain said Sunday the controversial proposal to amend the Constitution would step on states’ rights.

“The states regulate the conditions of marriage, and unless there’s some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“We in Arizona should make our decisions about the status of marriage in our state just as the people in Massachusetts and other states should make their decisions,” he said.

Maybe the hypocrisy and the belligerence of the Bush administration is obvious to every human being on the planet but about 80 million flag-waving, Fox-watching Americans, many of whom believe that Bush is an instrument of the lord Jesus Christ.

Or maybe when Moonbats bark about Bush hating blacks, revoking the constition, waging war for oil, and coordinating a reichstag-like attack on his own country - the rest of the people on the planet take it seriously.

You hand anti-american propaganda to tyrants and despots who would destroy us.

It's funny and a bit pitiful that Doyle and many Democrats don't cringe when Osama and his al Qaeda affiliates use the very same phrases and arguments as does the far left.

I guess I wouldn't brag about being as 'perceptive' or 'enlightened' as Osama.

Blacks in Ohio?Please.Yeah, yeah, Kerry won by a freaking landslide, Doyle. And he's running his shadow government right now, from a hill near his mansion in Massachusetts. He has a little table, namecards, and various dolls representing the cabinet members.

"Jesus, Fen, could you take a half hour and do a little research? It will put an end to your gullible association of gay with NAMBLA. NAMBLA is a group that seeks to defend having sex with little children. Kids, Fen, i.e. tots. There is no support for NAMBLA as part of the gay rights movement. There's nothing about being gay that makes one want to rape children. Gay people are as revulsed and horrified by that as anyone else. NAMBLA tried to piggyback on the gay rights movement a couple of decades ago and was firmly rejected."

No, it wasn't. It was still marching--without protest or apparent disapproval--in the San Francisco gay pride parade as late 1990. Homosexuals were defending NAMBLA in soc.motss in 1991 and 1992. When an anti-gay initiative was on the ballot in Oregon in the early 1990s, the various groups that met to fight it spent two hours debating whether to exclude NAMBLA or not. (A hard decision, apparently.)

Yes, in the last several years, homosexuals have finally figured out that NAMBLA is bad PR, and some homosexuals are genuinely disgusted with NAMBLA. But pedophilia has been part of the gay rights movement for a very long time. Read Ginsburg's "Howl." See this collection of quotes about pedophilia from homosexual activists. Even the supposedly classical tradition of homosexuality wasn't between equals--it was adult men of wealth and power taking advantage of boys.

Why is it that you should you get to be blatantly biased and constantly wrong in a public forum but that Fox News cannot be blatantly biased and constantly wrong?

They can be, and often are.

I will say that FNC has pulled in its horns a little bit. The permanent waving flag on the upper left is more discreet (and not as red!). And their straight news coverage has actually ressembled straight news more frequently than it did a couple years ago.

It's still the voice of the GOP, but I think the profit motive is pulling it towards the center. Ailes is pissed about the ratings.

"Clayton, I'm curious how you know that someone posting on soc.motss is homosexual. Or serious."

When they identify themselves as homosexual--and have been doing so for months on end. When they call me on the phone to talk, and identify themselves as homosexual.

Ah heck, maybe the San Francisco gay pride parade in which NAMBLA kept marching--alongside the floats with naked men masturbating or sodomizing other naked men--were all a big conservative Potemkin village.

Yeah, yeah, Kerry won by a freaking landslide, Doyle. And he's running his shadow government right now, from a hill near his mansion in Massachusetts. He has a little table, namecards, and various dolls representing the cabinet members.

Then he pours them some tea.

Hee! Pogo this made me snicker because it reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles back in 2001 when they had Al Gore delivering his state of the union address to his cats.

Oh dear God, it's the dark lord of homosexual cooties himself, Clayton Cramer! Pull up a chair everyone, we're about to hear how Clayton was frightened by some queers at some parade he passed on the way to church.

I've had a professor tell me that IM conversations are readily accesible by search on the internet. I don't believe that's true. I'm not sure what is and isn't recorded is quite as obvious as people make out though.

I don't generally record IM's (at least on purpose), because that would mean anyone sitting at my computer could see what I've talked about. Of course, I'd record anything written to me by a Congressman, though.

I believe there are IM programs that save conversations automatically by default.

Trillian (a commonly used client for people who want to be able to IM all of the other chat services) logs by default, at least in some of its installations. By default, Yahoo logs everything but clears it when you sign out. Other IM clients I dunno about.

But in any case, I've certainly turned on logging before. There's nothing especially weird about it. I've never done the IM-sex thing, but logging sex chat makes as much sense as filming yourself having sex, and its a lot easier to do. The teenagers in question might have just wanted to save the logs for use as wank material later, or something.

ICQ, which used to be huge, automatically saved conversations. MSN has evolved over the years, but has been capable of logging for a long time (since 2002 at least) and as far as I know saves automatically. Trillian is frequently set to autolog, and I believe AIM is as well.

I'm rather shocked that people didn't know this! I've always set IM clients to log conversations, so as to save data like phone numbers, save minutes of meetings, collaboration on projects, links sent for work or fun purposes, etc.

You're using someone else's server, so you should always assume that they, at least, are saving your conversations, and you have no control over what the other party(ies) does with their copie(s). Every electronic message or conversation should be assumed to be CCd to the NYT and WSJ, for once it's sent you have no control over what is done with it and it can be verifiably tracked back to you.

This won't stop any of us from sending all sorts of things that we don't want seen by others, but you have to be aware of this, especially given your current and hoped for positions. Never use work email, or work computers, for inappropriate communications. If one has an especially responsible job or are in politics, one shouldn't be sending any inappropriate messages. If you want to fool around, buy a disposable cell phone and never use your names.

Drill Sgt., yes, McCain opposes the Federal amendment, but he endorsed his state's amendment banning same-sex marriage. Same tune, different stage. He doesn't support my right to marry my partner; so it's a win for advocates of states' rights, but not for individual's rights. Basically, all that did was give him national cover, while he maintains his conservative creds at home. That's a wonderful illustration of my complaint about the GOP's so-called big tent!

Elizabeth,Those two positions are entirely consistent. I don't support federalizing the definition of marriage, but that has nothing to do with my opinion on what the definition of marriage in Indiana should be. My views on whether abortion should be legal in Indiana have nothing to do with my views on whether Indiana should be able to have laws on that subject. The question of who gets to decide is absolutely central to legal conservatives, and that you brush it aside shows how little the left understands such matters. The legislature of a state should decide the definition of marriage. Not the U.S. Congress, certainly not a U.S. court, and probably not a state court.

I am not surprised by the media’s and public’s reaction to the Foley affair – specifically to holding Hastert and the Republican leadership responsible. The outcry is only a further example that the Republican party is the party of family values, of strong defense, etc., which is why conduct of this sort will resonate much more with Republicans and Republican voters, which is why the story has legs as a media event.

"I am not surprised by the media’s and public’s reaction to the Foley affair – specifically to holding Hastert and the Republican leadership responsible. The outcry is only a further example that the Republican party is the party of family values, of strong defense, etc.,"

Do you really believe this? Does that mean that those who are defending Hastert do not believe in "family values" or "strong defense" (not sure how that latter one even flows). People like, er, Geroge Bush. I will never understand blind party loyalties such as this. The amount of intellectual contortion one must go through to justify such a world view would just exhaust me.

"Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years. These "Rights Activists" knew that representative Foley had relationships with "young men less than half his age." They did their own investigation on Foley. They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They held on to the information for over a year. They wrote about how they would break the story at midterm elections."

Clayton, nothing you link to shows anything but a clear series of actions to eject NAMBLA from the gay community. The pro-NAMBLA sources quoted are, no surprise, NAMBLA members. The gay activists cited as argue against ejecting NAMBLA in the early 1990s are largely misrepresented. Pat Califia didn't support NAMBLA; he rejected the right's desire to tie gay rights to NAMBLA, and felt that gay groups validated that tactic by responding on the right's terms.

One of the articles you cite refers to efforts beginning in 1979 by lesbian feminists to confront the efforts of NAMBLA and similar organizations to try to ride the tails of the gay rights movement; everything you link to shows that process happening. IGLA's move to expel organizations that wouldn't support the statement against child abuse was the right course, and children's rights, as defined by UNICEF, are still covered by the IGLA's mission statement. It has 400 member organizations, all of which support that stand. You point out that the fact that most gay people you talk to are revulsed by pedophilia, but say that they don't represent the entire gay community. True. Nor do a few fringe groups who fail to overtly reject pedophilia, as distinct to actually lobbying for it.

Much of what you cite seems to further the confusion between pedophilia and pederasty. It's also true that among gay rights issue is the age of consent; there are countries and states where that age is set higher for same-sex relationships. That means a male over 18 could go to jail for having sex with a 16-year-old male, while the same relationship would be legal for male/female participants. It's easy enough to summarize that by saying the gay agenda is about making teens available to older men. But that would be a crass distortion of the position that the age of consent should be the same for hetero and homosexual sex.

Simon, you brush aside the core issues of both gay marriage and abortion rights: that supporters of those rights aren't doing cartwheels of joy for placing them at the whims of voters. I'm not dismissing anything carelessly; I'm saying what matters if having my rights recognized. I don't want slavery to be decided by states, or my right as a woman to vote. The end game is that the GOP doesn't have much to offer gay people, other than those few gay people whose happiness in life rests in federalism.

drill sgt., rudi doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. Nor do any of the handful of pro-choice, gay friendly GOP pols you can dig up in the North East. I think that's a shame, and it's just as true of the Dems. I don't think a pro-same-sex marriage candidate will get that nomination. I guess it could happen, but it's a longshot.

"The gay activists cited as argue against ejecting NAMBLA in the early 1990s are largely misrepresented. Pat Califia didn't support NAMBLA; he rejected the right's desire to tie gay rights to NAMBLA, and felt that gay groups validated that tactic by responding on the right's terms."

So the correct response to someone tying NAMBLA to your organization was not to expel them from your organization?

You still haven't explained why ILGA largely became moribund because its funders were angry at the ILGA voting to expel NAMBLA--and so they cut off funding. Maybe the funders of ILGA were fringe sorts--but what does it tell us when ILGA was primarily funded by "fringe sorts"?

I will never recover from my shock at seeing NAMBLA accepted in the San Francisco gay pride pride. All of my traditional beliefs about homosexuality and its attitude towards child molestation were badly shaken by that, and by the LARGE number of homosexuals who got argumentative with me about whether NAMBLA was part of their movement or not.

Of course, since one of your wholly owned subsidiaries, the ACLU, is busily:

1. Defending NAMBLA on a civil suit involving rape and murder of a child.

2. Filing briefs arguing that there is a due process liberty interest of adults to have sex with 14 year olds. (Yes, that doesn't preclude regulation, but the same brief, in the Limon case, pointed to abortion and birth control in the same footnote, and we know how much regulation the ACLU allows for those.)

I can't take seriously that molesting children isn't a core value of your movement.

"Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years. These "Rights Activists" knew that representative Foley had relationships with "young men less than half his age." They did their own investigation on Foley. They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They held on to the information for over a year. They wrote about how they would break the story at midterm elections."

Uh, so what? None of that indicates that they knew Foley was hitting on pages.

Clayton, I did indeed answer that issue; also, ILGA is not moribund. It's active, has 400 members, and continues to do its work. You're obsessing over something you say you saw in a parade years ago. Move on. Now that I've gotten a look at your website, I realize where this is heading, and I'm not continuing on with you.

Uh, so what? None of that indicates that they knew Foley was hitting on pages.

Right. Why should we expect the radical gay activists and democrat house members to connect the dots or worry about the interns who worked for them. Its not like they were protecting a pervert until he could be outed before mid-terms or anything....

My Fall break began with the end of this work day; I've not had time off since early in the Spring semester, so I'm off to putter around and do inconsequential things until I absolutely have to grade a pile of papers. The Foley thing will no doubt continue to unfold, and as much as I'd like to follow it minute by minute, I'm regretfully leaving this stimulating conversation for now.

All of my traditional beliefs about homosexuality and its attitude towards child molestation were badly shaken by... the LARGE number of homosexuals who got argumentative with me about whether NAMBLA was part of their movement or not.

For those of you are not familiar with Clayton's posts on the Volokh Conspiracy, this is really all you need to know: you are dealing with a man to whom widespread, heated rejection of NAMBLA as a part of the gay rights movement is evidence of acceptance of NAMBLA as a part of the gay rights movement.

"I will never understand blind party loyalties such as this. The amount of intellectual contortion one must go through to justify such a world view would just exhaust me." Coco, Maybe you should look in the mirror once in a while. There are no contortions being done by the Republicans here. Foley has resigned and I haven't seen anyone defending his actions. Hastert isn't the one IM-ing 16 yr old pages. For people who have defended and supported a sexual deviant (Clinton) outright before in a sex scandal to now call anyone else a hypocrite is the height of hypocrisy.

I see. So once they knew he was gay they should have suspected he had a thing for teenage boys.

Let me put it this way: if Foley had been a hetero Congressman known for being extra-friendly to 16-year-old girls, wouldn't *you* have been a teeny bit suspicious?

This assumes, of course, that Foley really was known for being gay rather than simply suspected of such. Lots of people are saying with 20/20 hindsight "oh, the man was clearly gay", but there sure wasn't much talk about it *before* the scandal hit -- just the occasional rumor or innuendo.

Its not like they were protecting a pervert until he could be outed before mid-terms or anything....

LOL. Not like the RNC/Rove would *ever* do something like this. Watching the Right whine and cry like babies, over something they've been doing for years is truly delicious.

Aside from the usual bizarre and frantic conspiracies coming from LGF,/FreeRepub crowd, I can't for the life of me see the Repub strategy here. At all. Because blaming the Dems/Pages/Media/Gays just is not going to go over w/ soccer moms, IMO.

If you're not a politician or needing to have a particular job in a particular town, who cares who knows what you typed or what you thought?

Lots who delete aren't "hiding" anything, and can laugh off later relevations of what they thought and wrote. Perhaps even turn it on the voyeristic "collectors" of such pervy talk in chatrooms and the like.

Worse is the person who thinks they need to hide irrelevant facts from the past, like what happened in say grade school, in order to get ahead in their careers. Can you imagine living your whole life covering up like that?

Again, the trick is in losing the "shame" and feeling the need to protect a "reputation" at the cost of being honest and living your life on your terms.

Politicians like former Rep. Foley, and corporate and academic leaders, depend on their rep to feed themselves. Lots of other people don't and can survive the shame from outing private thoughts and opinions that go against the grain. MEG

For example, I for one had sex with a person well over 18 I met in a chatroom. Enjoyed myself too. And there was some pervy talk online before meeting up. Actually we met up twice, driving a distance. So will it lose me a job someday? Perhaps. Taint my rep? Perhaps. Would I do it again? Sure, just in the hopes that it would be more long lasting.

"And so did Democratic insiders. Who do you think *distributed* those emails all those months ago? Denny Hastert?"

To Fox News? Interesting.

I didn't say "to Fox News". I have no idea where Fox got them from, although it obviously wasn't from the Republicans. But in any case, why *not* to Fox News? Democrats like to whine about how nasty and conservative Fox News allegedly is, but Fox likes a good political sex scandal as much as the next major media organization. They ran stories on the phony Plame scandal, didn't they?

Look at it this way: the press, which is packed to the gills with Democrats (even at Fox News) knew about the emails months ago. The Republican leadership, and therefore any number of leak-happy gossip-happy junior staffers, knew about the emails months ago. Random bloggers knew about the emails months ago. Are you seriously going to argue that the Democrats *didn't* know about the emails months ago? How on Earth did they avoid knowing? Did they hang signs on their office doors saying "please, for the love of God, don't tell us any nasty gossip about Republicans"?

Honestly, I could care less, and part of me kind of hopes the Dems are somehow behiond this, as it would mean they're starting to fight evil with evil

"Started to"? I take it you've never heard of Karl Rove's liberal predecessor, James "Just get elected, then get even" Carville.

Aravosis or the Dem leadership or both? First you were pointing fingers at Aravosis and now you seem to have changed targets to the Dem leadership

So who is the evil hypocrite liberal?

Any liberal that called for Hastert's resignation - and yes, that could be you and others here.

Pelosi et al knew via Aravosis and CREW. They could have broken the story over the summer, possibly protecting OTHER teens from the stalker Foley. They kept silent for political purposes. If Hastert has no business being Speaker b/c of this, then neither does Pelosi or anyone else in her crew.

This is going to explode back in your face. Dig out your Clinton talking points and get ready to squirm.

Try again - I'm already on record here blaming Foley and the GOP and calling for Hastert's resignation.

I never asked for him to resign! I hope he sticks around, at least past Nov. As far as I can tell, its Repubs asking for him to resign.

Now its your turn to live up to the standards you insist we abide by:

Sure, but never said this.

If Pelosi knew, should she be forced to resign?

IF she were the House Speaker yes! Did she know some emails were going around? I don't know. If someone dropped them on her desk, protocols Im sure would mandate they go where? To Hastert. She can't go over Hastert to look into it, could she?

The original emails, Aug 05, didn't go to Pelosi, they went to Alexander, (whom the parents told to stop)then to Shimkus, who is Head of the Page Board. They told Foley to stop. And the Dem on the Page Board, Dale Kildee says he was not informed about the Foley matter whatsoever. If he was lying, Im sure Hastert would bust on this in a second. And, Im sure there would be some kind of trail of notification to Kildee.

With power, and the Majority, comes responsibility. Wouldn;t you agree the Buck has to stop somewhere?

"Will America’s mayor become America’s president? Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is one of the top Republican presidential contenders for 2008 and the only leading potential candidate, Democrat or Republican, that a majority of registered voters nationwide would like to see run for president. Many voters also see him as ideologically acceptable although this is fueled by 70% of Republicans who see him as politically about right." -- WNBC/Marist Poll, 10/3/06

I have my IM client set to save all IMs. It's just text and text takes up no room whatsoever in a relative sense. Probably one snap of the the digital camera would equal a lifetime's worth of IMs. Why not save them in case you want to review one someday? Google Desktop will find any of them in an instant.

Fenris, I don't know if I've called for Hastert to resign -- after a while one does lose track of what one writes. I hope you will agree, though, that at the minimum, Hastert has not been leading well. He either knew about what was going on, and ignored it, or he didn't know what his subordinates were doing. Neither of those are exactly stellar leadership qualities.

revenant: I have no idea where Fox got them from, although it obviously wasn't from the Republicans.

How is this obvious? I've read numerous reports that the original leaker is a long-time Republican -- as yet anonymous. If that's true, he must be pissed about something.

Drudge is reporting that the "teen" who conversed with Foley via instant messsages was in fact 18 and not 17 as previously reported by ABC. If this is true, it is a massive injustice by ABC and the media in general. In fact it could be another memogate.. and the ABC reporters and executives at ABC should be the ones resigning in disgrace.

Isn't this all really Bush's fault? And if it's Bush's fault, isn't it also the fault of every elected Republican in the federal government, not just the Speaker of the House? And if that is, in fact, the case, shouldn't we blame the Republican voters who elected these abusive sickos to their positions of power?

With power, and the Majority, comes responsibility. Wouldn;t you agree the Buck has to stop somewhere?

Sure. But what's wrong with it stopping with Foley?

What's with the sudden leftie enthusiasm with Congressmen acting as the Sex Police? Bad enough when social conservatives do it. At least they have the excuse of thinking God wants them to care about what people do with their penises.

Getting up in arms because Foley spanked the monkey while text-messaging horny teenagers is bad enough. Getting up in arms because nobody immediately threw Foley out of the Republican Party LearJet buck naked as soon as the slightest suspicions surfaced is sillier still. Demanding people resign in disgrace because the leaders of our government failed to drop everything and rush to make sure that nobody in Congress was beating off in a politically incorrect manner is beyond silly and well into the realm of "oh, give me a freakin' break".

I'm not saying this because I want Hastert to stay Speaker. As a Speaker the guy's a putz. But he should be sacked for being a useless waste of oxygen, not for failure to make sure Foley used both hands while sending instant messages.

With all of your talk about how the real scandal is the Democrats holding onto the information, I'm wondering when you're going to actually inject some facts into your comments. Your idea of a smoking gun is that a self-promoting blogger with an agenda to out people posts that he knew about the e-mails. Then he says he contacted the Democrats. What a conspiracy. But oops, you missed the part where he says the Democrats wouldn't return his calls, and deleted his comments from their web site. That's quite a partnership they had going on there.

You're playing a game common to those who can't actually make a point. Just keep making up scenarios and throwing them against the wall, and claim that yours is the only logical idea, since no one can actually disprove it, since it exists only in your fevered imagination. Here's a perfect example: "Pelosi et al knew via Aravosis and CREW. They could have broken the story over the summer, possibly protecting OTHER teens from the stalker Foley." The only thing missing is any proof that Pelosi knew about it, that she was primarily responsible for protecting the pages, and that CREW gave her the information. Other than that your hypothesis is very well supported.

It's amazing that you can't see how laughable your up-is-down arguments are. Hmm, let's see which is more believable. Fanciful scenarios with no basis in fact developed by bloggers who are frantic at seeing their party melt down, or actual established facts, all of which have Republican names associated with them. Please come back to the real world.

If people want to argue that too much is being made of this, I don't agree, but it's certainly an arguable point. But all of this "don't look at the facts, look at this shiny object over here" obfuscation just stinks of desperation.

seven, very good. You've reached the Bargaining stage in the grief cycle. You will shortly become depressed before reaching acceptance. Maybe we should just blame Democrats, because they didn't offer up an electable individual as an alternative in Foley's district.

This whole fiasco certainly is not the fault of any Republican. No sir!

sloan, I've kinda lost track. Which of the many pages aged to over 18 while conversing with Rep. Foley? The one who was a page in '95? '98? '02? It's hard to keep track.

Madison Man -- This whole fiasco is exactly the fault of Mark Foley, who resigned and should go to jail if he had sexual relations with anyone under the age of consent in any jurisdiction.

This lockstep blaming of the entire Republican leadership is absurd. Rep. Jefferson hid a bunch of almost certainly tainted money in a freezer. Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne. Patrick Kennedy is a known drug-abusing drunk. Yet I note that no one -- not one single person -- resigned over any of those political fiascos. Why, golly, there wasn't even any suggestion that the entire Democratic leadership was to blame. Wonder why that is?

Drudge is reporting that the "teen" who conversed with Foley via instant messsages was in fact 18 and not 17 as previously reported by ABC. If this is true, it is a massive injustice by ABC and the media in general. In fact it could be another memogate.. and the ABC reporters and executives at ABC should be the ones resigning in disgrace.

"Massive injustice", eh? Can't wait to hear about the Republicans jumping to Clinton's defense, since Monica was over age 18.

Nonetheless - it would help if people actually READ what Drudge wrote, i.e. "A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday."

And the e-mail exchange between Foley and the page actually had an exchange where the page objected that he wasn't even 18 yet and Foley responded with something like "I know, I can always dream". I'm paraphrasing there.

seven -- your beef isn't with me, it should be with Conservatives who want Hastert to resign. My main point in these various threads, I think (when I'm not being snarky and enjoying this far too much), is to call into question Hastert's leadership abilities. If Republicans want to be lead by someone of Hastert's (cough) skill, that's entirely their prerogative.

I'll repeat what hasn't been said enough: This whole thing clouds the discussion of things that are really important, and the sooner the Republicans can decide what to do -- or at least keep their stories straight for a day -- the better the country will be for it. There's likely a parallel to the Clinton Impeachment and what was allowed to percolate because all of DC was focused on Monica. What's percolating now because of Foley?

The entire Republican House leadership should be replaced. I agree wholeheartedly. But not because of Foley.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. Without Foley, though, there's no way it could happen. I hope you'll accept their resignations because of Foley, even though you don't think the handling of Foley is cause for resignation.

I don't think they'll all resign. But it's interesting to watch the positioning that is ongoing. Blunt saying he would've done things differently, for example. Boehnert trying to distance himself. I am the world's biggest cynic when it comes to Politicians, so when their true natures are exposed during days like today, well, I like to watch it.

Madison -- Maybe this Foley thing is a blessing in disguise, then. It would be good to get some honest, visionary conservatives into leadership positions. De Lay and the current crop were really not that great. Hence, all the Republican frustration about getting nothing of any value done.

MadisonMan: I hope you will agree, though, that at the minimum, Hastert has not been leading well. He either knew about what was going on, and ignored it, or he didn't know what his subordinates were doing. Neither of those are exactly stellar leadership qualities

Completely agree. Have been saying so since the story broke Friday. His "don't recall" defense infuriated me. Its highly suspect.

But let me reiterate, since others here are squirming and trying to dodge the question - we do not blame the Dems for anything Foley or Hastert did. Thats a dishonest strawman.

From the start of this on Friday, the Right side of this blog has been cornered with SPECULATION not FACTS about what Hastert knew & when. The Left demanded we denounce Hastert et al, before we even knew what all the facts were. We immediately put the blame on Hastert and Foley. Our only disqualifier was if indeed what you say about hastert is true. Many of us [rightly] called for his resignation. Despite this, we were called out for whitewashing, evading, shifting blame etc. by those who only seek to exploit this scandal for political gain.

Now it appears that Pelosi et al had advance knowledge of this, and instead of outing Foley over the summer to protect interns working for them, they chose to save it as a trump card for the midterms. The standard of evidence is no less than that against Hastert.

The only thing missing is any proof that Pelosi knew about it, that she was primarily responsible for protecting the pages, and that CREW gave her the information. Other than that your hypothesis is very well supported.

Your idea of a smoking gun is that a self-promoting blogger with an agenda to out people posts that he knew about the e-mails. Then he says he contacted the Democrats. What a conspiracy. But oops, you missed the part where he says the Democrats wouldn't return his calls, and deleted his comments from their web site.

And you believe him? You think its plausible that Dems wouldn't follow up? The same people who cultivated Bill Burkette?

That's quite a partnership they had going on there.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics [CREW] is based in in 1400 Eye Street NW, Washington DC.

Do you honestly believe they haven't exchanged information on this with the DNC? Met for lunch? Crossed paths at a cocktail party? Do you have the first clue how DC works?

I'll wager that congressional staffers are shredding emails and phone logs as we speak.

But you're right. Don't take my word for it. This is the net. Wait and see whats uncovered in the next week.

Meantime, will you at least answer the question? If Pelosi knew and sat on this, should she be forced to resign?

I deleted my above posts out of respect for Althouse's Blog in case she finds a reason not to reveal the name of the former Page. However, if he is confirmed to be the one then I think it is open season as to how and why he turned over instant messages received from Foley, especially since he was 18 at the time of the exchanges. What motivation would he have to turn over the messages? What if he denies sending the IMs but Foley confirms it was him he thought he was IMing?

I did a google search and his myspace website has now been deleted. He is obviously concerned.

Elizabeth - NAMBLA is a group that seeks to defend having sex with little children. Kids, Fen, i.e. tots. There is no support for NAMBLA as part of the gay rights movement. There's nothing about being gay that makes one want to rape children. Gay people are as revulsed and horrified by that as anyone else. NAMBLA tried to piggyback on the gay rights movement a couple of decades ago and was firmly rejected.

If one looks at www.nambla.org, most of the focus appears to be on the Joys of Pederasty. Where it departs from other Gay organizations busy trying to rehabilitate the reputations of famous pederasts and extolling "loving older man-younger boy relationships" is that NAMBLA doesn't draw the line at pedophilia (age 12 and under). The NAMBLA position on pedophilia, not pederasty - is what other gay groups consider "unacceptable" -

Fenrisulven 5:19 post- Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years.

They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Interesting story. Perhaps when the FBI investigates they truly will know who knew what, when.

Not just the activists, but the claims of Soros-Front group CREW that they shared the emails they got from "X" with a number of media and political figures. Hmmm. Now, Melanie Sloan and others at CREW are judged politically reliable Leftists to be allowed to staff the Front groups, and deliberately preferred to be lawyers so they can "cut off" inquiries to link shadow network groups if they come under scrutiny, but it doesn't look like they are now in a position of using lawyer client privilege or confidentiality from saying who their point of contacts back in July were about the "Red Flag" emails.

If Fenrisulven is right, this looks like a carefully orchestrated set-up to spring long-held knowledge at the perfect time in an election cycle. Not concern about "saving the poor boys from pervs" if they (Gay activists, Soros, CREW, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) sat on the info.

I have my Yahoo Messenger set to archive everything for 30 days. I almost never look at old IMs, but sometimes I like it if a friend gives me some info I'll need later (like a phone number, mailing address, instructions about something, whatever).

Andrew Sullivan is an AOL user, and you have to go out of your way more to log IMs on AOL.

But yeah, people log a lot of stuff. I've seen forums where people post logs of weirdos and, like, ex-boyfriends who can't let go, so others can have a laugh and comment on the conversations.

Not sure that I agree with your assertion about the 'anti-GOP media,' let's be honest-- Mark Foley put the pieces in motion for this one, and with all the attention that has been focused on child molesters and internet predators over the past few years, finding one in Congress would certainly be newsworthy. As far as it being near the election, blame Denny Hastert for that. If he'd dealt with it last year, Foley would be as ancient as Duke Cunningham in the news. That's the danger of coverups.

And as far as the media, do you consider FOX news to be anti-GOP? Especially when they misidentify Foley as a Democrat? I guess that's how to avoid reporting a Republican scandal. Just "accidentally" change the party label.

"Massive injustice", eh? Can't wait to hear about the Republicans jumping to Clinton's defense, since Monica was over age 18.

Perjury's still illegal, last I checked, regardless of the age of the girl you're lying under oath about.

"Patrick Kennedy is a known drug-abusing drunk."

So is Dubya.

I take it you slept through the English class where they taught the difference between past and present tense.

I'll tell you who will be a good leader. Nancy Pelosi, that's who.

Heh! Nancy Pelosi would be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. If the Democrats are dippy enough to make her Speaker the Republicans shouldn't have any difficulty at all retaking the House in '08.

The Democrats should do something smart, like pick someone who isn't far to the left of ninety percent of the voting public.

Actually the Boston Globe finally published a story on page B1 about the democratic governor candidate Deval Patrick and his support of a convicted felon, Ben LaGuer, who became a cause celebre until his insistance on having the DNA evidence tested revealed that he actually was the rapist and torturer of an elderly woman.

The article was, of course, not as damning as what has been on the local radio shows in Boston.

Meantime, will you at least answer the question? If Pelosi knew and sat on this, should she be forced to resign?

No -- How is this information, and its use, counter to the Democrats' goals this November. The real idiocy of Hastert, as I've said more than once, is that if Nancy Pelosi knew -- which I've seen no evidence of, by the way, all evidence I've seen says a Republican leaked the news -- why on God's Green Earth would he do nothing about it?

Pelosi not squealing on the distasteful habits of a Congressman of the opposite party follows a long long long tradition of Party Leaders not turning into a morass of fingerpointing and scolding in which nothing at all gets done.

"Do you honestly believe they haven't exchanged information on this with the DNC? Met for lunch? Crossed paths at a cocktail party? Do you have the first clue how DC works?"

"I'll wager that congressional staffers are shredding emails and phone logs as we speak."

See the common thread? Every one of ytour suppositions is breathtakingly fact free. Your use of weasel words like "it appears" is particularly revealing. Because some right wing blogger speculates on something, that doesn't mean it "appears" to be true.

Now we get this from Cedarford: "If Fenrisulven is right, this looks like a carefully orchestrated set-up to spring long-held knowledge at the perfect time in an election cycle." So the echo chamber continues. You pull speculation out of your ass, and now we're supposed to consider it as a plausible scenario. All based on nothing. "If Fenrisulven is right." Please. And if Kevin Barrett is right, the US government planned the 9/11 attacks.

Here's the most laughable one. You cite this blogger who claims to have given the information to the Democrats. You use that as the underpinning for your whole fanciful Democratic conspiracy theory. Then, when I point out that the bloggers says the Democrats wouldn't talk to him, you say "And you believe him?" Good God, he's the guy you're basing your theories on. So he's believable about the parts you want to believe, but not believable about anything that doesn't fit into your fever dream. You should be in the House Republican leadership. They can't keep their stories straight, either.

Then there's this: "Where is your proof that hastert knew about the IMs?" And you accuse me of not reading comments before I post? What an awkward attempt at a strawman. Beside the fact that I never said Hastert saw the IMs, there's also the fact that no one, as far as I've seen, has ever made that accusation. You're trying to set up a scenario where the case rests on whether Hastert saw the IMs, which no one alleges. So when it's established that he didn't you can once again declare "case closed." Very weak.

As for your question about Pelosi, no I won't answer it. It's just another high school debating team diversion. Throw out a question about a scenario that you just dreamed up, then declare that the conversation can't move forward until your all-important question is answered, thereby trying to make your speculation a central part of the debate.

Face it, you're getting your head handed to you here, and this flailing around like a blindfolded boxer is only convincing to fellow travelers like Cedarford.

I think Fens point is that if the democratic line on this is that the speaker covered up the emails and in doing so put underage pages at risk, then should Pelosi be held to the same standard? Holding what they knew until closer to the elction also put underage pages at risk no?

The answer is that there will be no answer until after we know what happened. Its a lot easier than changing your answer afterwords.

I'm sure Pelosi -- and just about any Representative -- knew that Foley was a bit off. But they worked with him, and he was probably able to be a congenial co-worker. So absent the actual emails -- what would anyone think? I try to think the best of my co-workers. What they do away from work is no business of mine.

Foley's biggest error (from the point of view of how cynical me interprets the Capitol to work) was getting caught in such a way that it looks like the Leadership, who knew more about it than an average co-worker likely would, did nothing when presented with a potential problem. Nothing that is, except ignore it. It's now a week later and Republicans still can't figure out what to do.

Suggesting that Pelosi should resign seems a bit desperate. I'm not convinced that Hastert or other GOPers overseeing the page program have done anything for which they should resign, but the calls for their resignations are based on the fact that (1) they had responsibility to deal with complaints of the kind made about Foley, (2) that complaints were made to them, and (3) that they did not investigate the complaints to an extent fitting with their responsibility. Pelosi, as Minority Leader, has no authority or responsibility to investigate this kind of thing, so, no, of course she should not resign. And, of course, there are also the not-so-small facts that there is no evidence that Pelosi or other Dem leaders knew about the complaints, there is ample evidence that multiple GOPers had varying degrees of knowledge, and there is also evidence that the GOPers overseeing the page program kept the Foley complaints from their Dem colleague.

Monkeyboy: I think Fens point is that if the democratic line on this is that the speaker covered up the emails and in doing so put underage pages at risk, then should Pelosi be held to the same standard? Holding what they knew until closer to the election also put underage pages at risk no?

You are the one who doesn't get it. You're tossing out red herrings to dodge my point: when this scandal broke Fri night, all we had on Hastert was speculation. Most of us agreed then that if Hastert did indeed sit on the emails/IMs, he should surrender his leadership position. Note that facts re his actions are still in question.

Now I turn the tables, with similar speculation re Pelosi that has some merit - the Dems had advance knowledge of Foley's emails/IMs and sat on them as a political calculation [as Hastert is accused of], so I simply asked:

If Pelosi knew, should she be forced to resign?

16+ hours later and the best the Left can do is an equivocal only if she was House Speaker and Pelosi is not her brother's keeper

I believe I've settled the question re which side holds their leadership to a higher standard.

You look foolish, and you got your ass handed to you at least 3 times on this thread already.

Hardly. The best response has been a 7 paragraph red herring. A dodge.

I don't see any Dems/Liberals asking Hastert to resign on this thread.

And there's another one. The Right is asking for Hastert to resign. The Left has blasted us for being hypocrites, but they won't ask the same of Pelosi that we ask of Hastert. You're confusing the two - deliberately.

And nice try with the upset angry WASP meme. That type of counter only confirms your desperation - you're cornered and bleeding in public. You're asked if you would hold your leaders to the same standard we do, and the best you can do is lash out with an ad hom.

I'm not angy, I'm amused.

You want another swing? I'll pitch it slower. All you have to do is claim you would want Pelosi to resign her leadership if its proven she withheld the emails/IMs for political gain.

I really don't understand why the question is so difficult for so many of you.

More speculation for you ChrisO. Yes, its an unsourced quote, but thats never stopped readers of the NYTs:

"But other Democrats say more is to come, that talk among Democrats around town is that researchers at CREW and the House Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee have in recent weeks been in contact, and that there are additional stories involving Republicans and questionable ethics behavior to be leaked closer to election time."

Come on guys. All I'm looking for is ONE Democrat to step up to the plate.

For the first two days, all we heard from the Left was that Democrats would never cover up a such a scandal, that the GOP are hypocrites for wanting to wait until more facts to come out, that one of these Foley's is not like the others: Condut/Clinton/Frank/Kennedy&Kennedy/Studds were somehow different scandals because they molested on a Tuesday instead of a Friday or some such nonsense. Okay. Fine.

Now we see information that Pelosi & the DNC may have done the same thing Hastert is accused of. And you hide behind equivocations? What are you afraid of? That more info on Pelosi and the DNC will break before Kos & Townhall can spin it for you?

Here, I'll even type it out for you, so you can cut-n-paste your response:

Yes, if its proven that Pelosi sat on the emails & IMs for political gain, and instead coordinated their release to affect mid-term elections, then she should resign her position as House Minority Leader.

Signed - A Democrat With Integrity

I'm only asking for one Democrat to step up. Do I need to get a Republican to log in with a smurf account and answer on your behalf?

Thanks for reaffirmning my point. We have members of the House leadership stating unequivocally that Hastert knew. Not left wing bloggers, Republican leadership. Yet you claim that your speculation about Pelosi is the "central question." I can see you're getting frustrated that no one's rising to your bait. Have you noticed that the conversation keeps moving forward, and you're still stuck in the corner asking your stupid question?

"Step up to the plate," "tick tick tick," what BS. When are you going to pull out *crickets*?You made a stupid and ham handed swipe at turning the discussion away from what everyone knows to be the facts, and toward some stupid speculation. Why don't you figue out that it's not working? You'll probably be more relaxed.

Isn't it interesting that all the Righties shout "Gerry Studds" ad nauseum but somehow fail to mention Dan Crane?

First of all, the reason Studds keeps getting mentioned is (a) he said there was nothing wrong with what he'd done and (b) Democrats kept re-electing him for six more terms. Crane apologized for his behavior and was rejected by Republican voters in the '84 elections.

Secondly, Crane *has* been mentioned by right-wing posters in these threads, because the difference in how Republicans treated him, and Democrats treated Studds, illustrates their claim that Republicans hold the moral high groun on this issue.

"Simon, you brush aside the core issues of both gay marriage and abortion rights: that supporters of those rights aren't doing cartwheels of joy for placing them at the whims of voters. I'm not dismissing anything carelessly; I'm saying what matters if having my rights recognized. I don't want slavery to be decided by states, or my right as a woman to vote. The end game is that the GOP doesn't have much to offer gay people, other than those few gay people whose happiness in life rests in federalism."

There's a procedure for this, you know. It's the procedure outlined in an obscure document that you clearly don't know much about, called the U.S. Constitution. There's a provision for amending the Constitution to specify limits of governmental power. While not trivial to pull the levers of amendment, it can be done--and amazingly enough, the two items that concern you above, women's suffrage and slavery, were both dealt with through the amendment process.

Now, it takes not just a majority, but a rather strong majority to amend the Constitution. I presume that's why homosexuals rely on the special doublesecret amendment process known as judicial activism to get what they want. You'll understand why some of us remain skeptical of it.

That you STILL won't admit that NAMBLA enjoyed substantial support (perhaps reflexive, unthinking support) from the gay community shows how completely and utterly clueless you are about reality.

The Women's Building in San Francisco (run and owned by lesbians, not surprisingly) actually rented its space out to NAMBLA for a national convention some years back.

"For those of you are not familiar with Clayton's posts on the Volokh Conspiracy, this is really all you need to know: you are dealing with a man to whom widespread, heated rejection of NAMBLA as a part of the gay rights movement is evidence of acceptance of NAMBLA as a part of the gay rights movement."

Yeah, that "widespread, heated rejection of NAMBLA" is why they participated for many years in the San Francisco, New York City, and Boston gay pride parades--only becoming unwelcome in the mid-1990s, as NAMBLA became an inconvenient albatross around gay political activism.

Look: I used to assume that homosexuality and pedophilia were way separate things. But the more I talked to gay political activists--and had many tell me that the community was "split" about this matter--and the more excuses and rationalizations that I saw from gay activists about NAMBLA--the more apparent it became that there is a connection there, or at least that there WAS a connection. Pretending otherwise is just lying.

You let me know when the gay rights movement's wholly owned subsidiary, the ACLU, decides that defending NAMBLA in a civil suit is stupid.

I can see why Eugene Volokh quickly booted you out from being a "co-conspirator" on his site, Cramer. You're nuts. You've been spreading your vile equivalent of "blood libel" against gay people for years. Fortunately the obsessive and ludicrous nature of your droppings make them pretty much self-refuting.

"Secondly, Crane *has* been mentioned by right-wing posters in these threads"

Mine is the first reference to him in this thread.

Given that Studds had been mentioned exactly once in this thread, I took your complaint about "Righties" mentioning him "ad nauseum" to refer to all the Foley threads on this site rather than just this one. And Crane was, indeed, mentioned by "Righties" in other Foley threads.

That Crane lost in one district while Studds won in another says little about the parties generally.

If Studds has won once, maybe. But personally, I think the fact that he continued to win over and over again says pretty clearly that underage gay sex isn't something Democrats care much about.

I don't say that to criticize their morality -- I don't care about it either. But it does give Republicans a legitimate case to point to and say "we don't tolerate people like this, but Democrats do".